Surprisingly, it hasn't made a huge difference in my comparisons. I am seeing 24 stale blocks with 9003 accepted at deepbit. 0.27% is not so different than what I saw when using slush with the same number of blocks. I will startup my slush fund again and see how it goes. I hope long polling has more benefits than I am seeing; it almost seems a bit of vapor when I compare. Maybe I need larger samples. I can say payouts have been approximately equal over time.

UPDATE [4/23 3:10P server]: Only 1820 into slush and have 6 stale which is about 0.33%. That is higher than it ever got in my comparisons with deepbit. A larger sample is still needed, but if I were to extrapolate this out, this still comes nowhere near the 1% difference for long polling deepbit claims. Tycho, how did you derive ~1% savings from this?

If you have found my post helpful, please donate what you feel it is worth: 18vaZ4K62WiL6W2Qoj9AE1cerfCHRaUW4x

Yes.From pool's home page:"Every instance of your miner needs its own worker account!!!" You could have also seen that your grand total hash rate was staying the same running the two PCs as the same worker, compared to only running one PC. I believe running two PCs as the same worker splits the work in half, so you were getting the same reward as you would have with just one PC. (I believe).

UPDATE [4/23 3:10P server]: Only 1820 into slush and have 6 stale which is about 0.33%. That is higher than it ever got in my comparisons with deepbit. A larger sample is still needed, but if I were to extrapolate this out, this still comes nowhere near the 1% difference for long polling deepbit claims. Tycho, how did you derive ~1% savings from this?

The number of stale shares has gotten a lot lower on Slush's pool lately, especially if you use a low polling value. It used to be 2-3%, but now I too get less than 1%.

Have parts of this rig in multiple pools, with score-based and share-based reward. When the subrig on the pool with score-based reward solves a block, retain the solution for a moment. Shift all your other subrigs working on pools with share-based reward to this pool, increase your score (this is rather quick in Slush's pool) until it you reach the score corresponding to the whole rig involved. Then submit the winning solution.

You could also extend this if electricity is expensive and mining is unprofitable at times for a part of your rig, so that you have certain of your miners idle. You can then use them as extra power to increase your score for a low energy consumption, since you turn them on at the right moment, and off again.

?

This should be possible, and in the limit it allows the cheater to almost double his earnings. I don't know if it was discussed before, I'll call it the "lie in wait" cheating method.

A possible countermeasure, which I don't know if is now implemented, is to keep track of the times of getwork requests, and ignore shares which were requested later than the winning share (or in the same getwork with a higher nonce).

UPDATE [4/23 3:10P server]: Only 1820 into slush and have 6 stale which is about 0.33%. That is higher than it ever got in my comparisons with deepbit. A larger sample is still needed, but if I were to extrapolate this out, this still comes nowhere near the 1% difference for long polling deepbit claims. Tycho, how did you derive ~1% savings from this?

The number of stale shares has gotten a lot lower on Slush's pool lately, especially if you use a low polling value. It used to be 2-3%, but now I too get less than 1%.

As of right now, I am at 0.48%. It has risen significantly. I definitely see how this may approach 1% if hit with a large chunk of work to find out it is stale. I am not sure how to change the polling rate though. I am using the poclbm miner so I assume there is a switch for that. I will have to look into it.

If you have found my post helpful, please donate what you feel it is worth: 18vaZ4K62WiL6W2Qoj9AE1cerfCHRaUW4x

This should be possible, and in the limit it allows the cheater to almost double his earnings. I don't know if it was discussed before, I'll call it the "lie in wait" cheating method.

A possible countermeasure, which I don't know if is now implemented, is to keep track of the times of getwork requests, and ignore shares which were requested later than the winning share (or in the same getwork with a higher nonce).

Ok, shhhh don't say anything... some people may listen, this is the most read topic on the forum

Try the following sort of command, it's from when I was last using the 4way miner. I don't know if the equals sign on parameters is necessary but that's what I had, and also note the user is your login code followed by the name of that miner. The password is also specific to the miner you've created, not the site login password.

ETA - just to be clearer miner1 is what I called my miner instance, it's not any sort of default. You need to go into your profile and press "register new worker" to give it a name like miner1 and a password.

I'm having trouble connecting with more then 1 worker. I have four instances using the same worker on one computer - they are all working fine. A worker on a different computer won't connect. If I turn off the other worker it will.

I'm having trouble connecting with more then 1 worker. I have four instances using the same worker on one computer - they are all working fine. A worker on a different computer won't connect. If I turn off the other worker it will.

This just started last night.

I am having the same problems. My second rig with four workers will not connect. I can't get to your website from that machine either. Thanks for any help.

I'm able to ping mining.bitcoin.cz from all my machines, but workers will only connect from one. I haven't tried accessing from a browser since I'm usually connected via SSH.

... what about the port forwarding to 8332 ... how does it get to both machines from the firewall/router? .. (assuming you have one)

I'm not doing any port forwarding.

well are you behind a firewall? ... help us a out bit, it sounds like a networking problem, if you tell us what your network set-up is maybe we can fix it ... don't give away much or someone might be able to hack all your rigs and take them over ... just kidding.

I'm having trouble connecting with more then 1 worker. I have four instances using the same worker on one computer - they are all working fine. A worker on a different computer won't connect. If I turn off the other worker it will.

This just started last night.

Last I checked you had to create a worker account for each worker.

Maybe slush recently made a change to not allow connections to worker account if one is already "connected"?